Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies based in the Boston area

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies based in the Boston area

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Directory - Not linked and most companies don't appear to be unique to Boston. Shadowjams (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, NOTDIRECTORY CTJF83 chat 09:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although the topic would be worthwhile as an article, this comes closer to being a directory than most articles. All that's missing is phone numbers and a yellow background. That being said, this is the author's first contribution to Wikipedia, and I don't want to discourage new editors. It takes time to learn the rules here, and although this breaks several of them (such as WP:NOTDIRECTORY), I like the way that the author organizes data -- it's very concise. I'd suggest that the author be shown how to "userfy" the article and work further on it. I think that, ultimately, it should limit itself to companies that are not unique to Boston or even to New England, and should concentrate instead on nationwide or worldwide companies that are headquartered in the Boston area. Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't want to discourage new editors either, but that doesn't mean giving them free passes on the pertinent policies and guidelines, and this is a very indiscriminate list. "Large operations?" Well, there are a lot of McDonald's restaurants, Mobil gas stations, Sears department stores, etc etc etc. If Mandsford wants to give the creator a tutorial on article creation, sure, go for it. RGTraynor 01:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As is true with many editors, I'll be happy to answer any questions that a newcomer might have, particularly when it comes to showing a person how to work on an article in userspace. For now, based on policy, I have to say Delete, which is no reflection on the user's writing ability. Mandsford (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change scope The problem with the list is that it contains all companies that have "Large Operations in Boston Area". That is a completely arbitrary criteria, and if not changed, is a clear delete. The first four are the Big Four auditors, none of which are based in Boston. What I would support is a list of companies 'based in' the Boston Area, i.e. companies with their global head offices there. This is the same criteria as is used for categories (e.g. Category:Companies based in Boston, Massachusetts). In addition to such a list only including notable companies (i.e. blue links), there could be a cut-off at a particular revenue if the list gets too long. Choose a very round number (for instance $10 million). Otherwise, non-profits, unless operating commercial businesses, should be removed. The list could then contain other relevant information, such as revenue, location, industry, year of establishment etc. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.